Magnetic OU principle, You should really take a look at this !

[hartiberlin]

Especially these 2 are the valid concepts:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaiMQV6W3oA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpmkWw2zkLI

If these moving pieces are iron pieces, this will not alter the magnetic
resistance the coil will see, thus so more energy is needed,
when the iron pieces will push a mechanical load.

It is a drag back electrical motor.
The input power is always constant,no mater
what mechanical load you apply.

[hartiberlin]

Combine this type of motor with a dragless generator from
Dan Quale:

http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=DQuale

www.overunitybuilder.com

and you should get a perfect selfrunner experience.

Regards, Stefan.

[wizkycho]

Hi Butch !

You just can't stop to amaze us with ammount of simple and more than obvious working ideas ... 
I'm jumping up and down right now.
Another well established working principle.
Many Many Thanks

This type of vector movement conversion can Help (it is NOW a must) and make Flynn and Hildebrand types of OU motors ALLWAYS workable.
In their setups (and in every other type of today motors) MOVING PARTs IS getting away from the cause of moving rendering LESS and LESS FORCE for movement.
Now Thanks to Butch We have allmost CONSTANT AMMOUNT OF FORCE on moving parts (are not changing distance from cause of moving) as long as we wan't it to act. making our setups predictable, more calculable...it is easier  now to push them to OU mode with certainty. This is very important in magnetism where distance is everything.

Dave Squires should quit the patent, join us and make it happen.

What to say ?
Butch Let THE FORCE be with YOU.

Wiz

[drsquires]

This is Dave Squires responding to this thread.

Here is the whole truth regarding this principle and Butch LaFonte's claims and actions.

True: Butch posted this idea on the web about 9 years ago give or take a few months.
        But he did nothing with it.  He did not INVENT anything.  Where is the product or patent?
        Butch posted it and it appears then waited for others to do something with it.

This principle has been used in the steel industry for something like 50 years. 
I didn't know this.  I did NOT know that Butch LaFonte had posted this idea on the web
9 years ago.  The idea came to me totally independently of Butch's posting or industry use
for "Fanner Magnets".   The point is that NOBODY saw the true SIGNIFICANCE of this principle.

Butch did not pick this back up until I mentioned all the research and simulations I did
ON MY OWN.  I PROVED with magnetic simulations and bench tests that there is something
of significance to this principle other than using it for separating steel plates in a welding shop.
Then Butch got all excited about it again when I told him of my research and proofs.  If I had
not told him he would still have no clue about it's true significance.

Butch has burned his bridge with me by insulting my father's memory and me by saying that
my late father said I was all about money.   Such an insult was totally uncalled for.  I had
thought Butch was a better man than this.

What I had proposed to apply for a patent on was a practical use of this principle, not
a set of washers on a dowel.

Since the cat is out of the bag for all intents and purposes and Stefan has mentioned a few
key aspects already I can confirm that the key principles are true based on my many simulations
and optimization of the key parameters.  I will NOT give away what the optimum parameters are
for practical usage.  Those of you on this forum can do your own independent research as you like.
It's probably better that way anyhow.

The basic aspects that I can confirm that have been mentioned in this thread already are:

1. For an EM coil properly set up the inductance of a coil will remain constant and see no
   change between collapsed and expanded conditions of steel elements in the magnetic gap.
   This means that the coil cannot see anything happen when those steel elements move and
   perform work.  This is because the volume of steel and gaps are unchanged in the magnetic
   path creating a case of constant magnetic reluctance in the magnetic circuit.  It is a
   nearly perfect case of non-reciprocity.  The motion of the steel pieces is virtually invisible to the coil.

2. For the case where permanent magnets are used the force of attraction on the magnets
   is the same for collapsed and expanded states of the steel elements.  This means that
   any motion of the magnets resolves to a integrated average force of very close to zero.
   My bench tests showed that these cogging forces are equal to within 2% or better.
   The expansion force is at right angles or orthogonal to the applied magnetic field and
    the attractive cogging forces.   It allows isolation of attractive and repulsive forces.

In reality what I have discovered and proven is a law of magnetic fields that says that

"The repelling force of a magnetic field is always orthogonal to the attractive force and both
forces are always present at all times."   

The concept of "like poles repel" is an over-simplification and not really true because magnetic
poles are an artifact of concentrated magnetic field flow collected in a toroidal arrangement.
Magnetic flux has a flow direction and that's what creates the illusion of magnetic poles.
Magnetic field lines flowing next to each other in the same direction repel each other.
A wire carrying current creates a circular field around it. There are no "poles" in such a field,
but there is a flow direction.  Two wires carrying current in opposite directions in close proximity
will repel due to the same flow direction in the center between them.  Maximum force occurs at
the tangential point of maximum parallelism of the flux lines on the line between the wires.
Higher flux density also plays a role.  The repelling force is a function of flux density and
how parallel the flux lines are.  A coil experiences an axial attractive force and a radial
expansion (repelling) force on it's windings. Permanent magnets have the same forces
internally manifested as stresses on the molecular lattice structure.

I won't discuss other practical uses of this principle or products that I have in development. 
I have a right to develop practical products and patent those practical embodiments just like anyone
else should I so choose.  Any of you on this forum including Butch have the same right. 
So go and get something done.  Do the research work and make something
happen. I don't have all the good ideas.  There are lots of creative people out there.
Let your minds run wild with this concept.  It's amazing that this basic principle of magnetic fields
has been missed for so long.   

One final point:
It is not my intention to argue these points or explain anything further. 
I don't need to prove anything one way or another to anyone else.
Please do your own work and prove it to yourself.

Best regards to all,
Dave Squires

[TinselKoala]

Hi Dave
Great response, nicely informative. I'm glad you are sharing your experimental work.
I just have to point out, though, that it is a long-used and elementary model of "magnetic field lines" to consider them as spring-like, strongly in tension (attraction) along their (one dimensional) length, and strongly repulsive to each other sideways (that is, orthogonal to the tension, at each differentially small point along the (curving) length. So, while your results support this model or principle, I think it is incorrect to state that it has been "missed for so long." 
Anyway, keep up the good work.
--TK